Nomenclatura

English: A multi-volume Latin dictionary (Egidio Forcellini: Totius Latinitatis Lexicon, 1858–87) in a table in the main reading room of the University Library of Graz. Picture taken and uploaded on 15 Dec 2005 by Dr. Marcus Gossler. Español: Diccionario de latín (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Nomenclatura” is a Latin word which refers to the “assigning of names to things.” It’s something that we often overlook, but is very important.

The names that we assign to things tell us something about those things and sometimes will also tell us something about ourselves. I’m one of the first people to kind of blow off a debate over words. But, I spend a lot of my time acting as a translator between senders and receivers.

That’s maybe a little bit unfortunate. I think that fighting over terms just to fight about them are pointless and unhelpful. But, agreeing on a common nomenclature means that people are better able to communicate with each other. Unfortunately, sometimes a term will fall into use and we’re worse off for it.

Wednesday, on Twitter, I asked:

Can we stop talking about "hard" and "soft" bounces now? How about "temporary" (4xy) or "permanent" (5xy) instead?

I asked this question because a “hard bounce” is ill-defined. For that matter, so is a “soft bounce.”

Think about this. What is a “hard bounce?” Sometimes it’s defined as an email returned with an error code that begins with a “5.” But, other times, it’s a specific error code or set of codes, such as “address does not exist” and/or “relay access denied” and everything else is a “soft bounce.”

If you want to discuss hard bounces then, you’ll first have to start by finding out what the person that you’re talking with thinks a “hard bounce” is. Only once you have calibrated what constituted a “hard bounce” can you begin to have a productive discussion.

Why shouldn’t we think about just doing away with terminology that has to be defined every time that you use it and replace it with something that that’s more easily understood? My suggestion on Wednesday was to use “temporary” and “permanent” instead, but I’m sure that there are other terms that might be as good or better.

Now, please, understand that I’m not suggesting that we get rid of the entire nomenclature, much of which is useful within the industry. Rather, I’m suggesting that some parts of it are less-than-productive, even if they aren’t counter-productive. We should be willing to change those things in order to make better communication possible.

Share this:

Bibliography

1 comment

Hi Mickey
I agree completely. ‘Hard’ vs ‘soft’ is a very black and white approach, but anyone who has spent time analysing bounce codes will know that we operate in shades of grey.
Blocks- are a prime example. Many senders may have a rule which says if ‘X’ soft bounces received over ‘Y’ time, add to suppression list. The potential for losing valid subscribed members vs resolving a wider issue – overzealous MTA settings for example – will not be resolved by some current settings.